The question is:

Does sovereignty ultimately lie with the populace or does it ultimately lie with those who exercise it (government)?


More on the Question:

Many people believe, and I don't necessarily disagree with them, that the ultimate authority and right to rule (sovereignty) is the exclusive and non-transferable domain of those who would be governed. This is the supposed basis of all democracies and republics.

But, can it be said that the actual authority lies with those who exercise that authority and that by virtue of exercising the authority, they have the right to do so?

Idealistically, I would agree with the former statement that the people rule. However, realistically I fear that the latter statement may be the case.

What do you all think?

This post has been edited by Andrew: Sep 16 2007, 07:37 AM

Following Hobbes, one could easily argue that man is by nature completely free, and only gives up that freedom to secure his person against oppression and his property against seizure. Without society and government, man's life is "nasty, poor, brutish and short."
Those who, in a democracy, exercise authority do so only in a fiduciary manner. In this case, the actual authority continues to reside in the individual; if a government (and by extension its laws) becomes oppressive or fails in securing the individual's safety, it is his right to alter or abolish it.

Living memory recalls that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all exercised authority, but one would find it difficult to say that they did so rightly- - - despite legal and governmental authorisation for it, and despite the approval (often tacit) of the majority of the people . The exercise of power in the world is a historical phenomenon and only that; whether it is justified or not is based on entirely different grounds.
Z

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Sep 16 2007, 11:09 AM

I would like to broaden the subject by pointing out that whether it is the people or the goverment who are sovereign, there is still the question of jurisdiction. Specifically, does soveriegnty lie in a city? a state? a federalized conglomerate of states? the whole world? For instance, in the US, the 10th Amendment states that the people or the states retain all authority and power not expressly given to the federal government. Yeah, I know, that's one of those Bill of Rights Amendments that got interpreted away by the (federal) Supreme Court (starting with Marbury vs. Madison). I think the real answer is this: might makes sovereignty. If the people want to be sovereign, they need to be well armed. Otherwise they will just be Jews in concentration camps, Burmese monks shot in the street, or Chinese run over by a tank in Tieneman square.

Yes, I agree. All of the above.

Sovereignty is awarded to the one who practices it, but that practice invites both allowance and retribution, which necessitates a strong hand on the part of the sovereign to maintain the sovereignty.